dotCommonweal

Cardinal George's deposition.

Today the Chicago Tribune published its summary of Cardinal George's deposition in the $12-million settlement with abuse victims. It isn't pretty. Bear with me as I quote the piece at length.

In his deposition, George revealed under oath the steps, missteps and lies that led to McCormack's tenure at St. Agatha years after initial allegations of misconduct surfaced during his seminary days. According to the document, as many as 23 people have alleged abuse by McCormack, who is now serving a 5-year prison sentence. The allegations against McCormack spurred the archdiocese to commission an independent 2006 audit of what went wrong in the case. In the deposition, the cardinal also detailed church deception and coverup in the Bennett investigation--facts omitted from that audit.

Standing before television cameras Tuesday, the cardinal once again said he was sorry for not acting sooner and promised more transparency. "In the sense I'm responsible for this archdiocese, I have to accept the blame," George said. The eight-hour, 305-page transcript of George and Anderson taken in January displayed a wide range of emotions from remorse to defensiveness. In the sometimes confrontational exchange, the cardinal also blamed other institutions for allowing McCormack to go free, including police, prosecutors and child welfare officials. He defended the archdiocese's actions regarding the delayed removal of Bennett from Holy Ghost parish in South Holland in February 2006. Bennett's removal was prompted by the widening McCormack scandal.

In the investigation of Bennett, the deposition finds the cardinal and church officials received four detailed allegations of sexual abuse dating back to 2002. But they did not act to remove Bennett from his church until 2006, despite two recommendations from the archdiocese review board months earlier, according to the deposition.

Instead, Bennett was placed under the supervision of a monitor, Rev. Leonard Dubi, who apparently was Bennett's close friend. George disregarded a recommendation by an archdiocese review board to remove Bennett in October 2005 and again in November, attributing the delay to the priest's lack of representation by a canon lawyer.

By the time he was removed, the deposition reveals, more than a dozen allegations had mounted against the priest--a fact the archdiocese failed to tell parishioners and the public.

Why did Cardinal George bother to convene a review board? He ignored his board's recommendation to remove McCormack from ministry. How a bishop could fail to act after receiving credible, detailed accusations against two priests just a few years after Dallas is baffling. The charter is clear. When credible accusations are made against a priest, he is to be removed from ministry. That is not a suggestion. It is particular law for all dioceses and eparchies in the United States.

The audits commissioned by George contain shocking information about how the archdiocese handled monitors. Monitors were not told why they had to keep track of priests in their charge. Some monitors had very little contact with their subjects. McCormack's monitor was told by the vicar for priests that he didn't have to notify the archdiocese of his vacation plans unless he would be gone for more than a week. And now we learn that the archdiocese assigned an accused priest's close friend as a monitor. In 2006?

And there's more. About that vicar for priests...

George's testimony and church correspondence on Bennett also indicated that the archdiocese's vicar for priests, Rev. Edward Grace, himself a lawyer, played a role in coaching clergy to deny allegations.In 2002, a male victim voluntarily underwent a lie-detector test that showed he was telling the truth. The cardinal says he never received that information. In 2003, a female victim tells archdiocese officials specific details about freckles on Bennett's scrotum and a round birthmark on his back that led an archdiocese review board to conclude that sexual abuse "did happen." Grace advised Bennett on how to handle the victim's knowledge of his private parts, according to a memo. According to the testimony, Grace told Bennett in November 2005 to get a note from a dermatologist questioning whether the scrotum marks might be "aging marks" and may not have been present at the time of the allegation.

The victims' attorney, Anderson, asks the cardinal about the freckles matter, saying: "Grace islooks like he's trying to explain it away. Do you read it that way?" George responds: "It could be read that way."

The cardinal said Grace and George Rassasthen, vicar general, now auxiliary bishop, also withheld information about allegations before McCormack's promotion to a supervisory role days after his August 2005 arrest, actions for which a letter of reprimand was placed in their file.

Comments

Re: The Tribune story from 8/13It is hard to fathom how Cardinal George (given his testimony in the deposition) can continue in his post as Archbishop of Chicago. He has admitted to direct complicity in the failure to remove abusive priests from contact with children. How is this not at least as serious as the abuse itself, which automatically removes a priest-abuser from ministry?(also posted below in the earlier thread)

Read the SNAP statement on the Cardinal's deposition - it is indeed damning, not only of him but other major players in the Chicago Archdiocese's higher ups.Nothing will happen though. Despite calls for George to resign or at least remove himself from being chosen head of US Bishops, he blithely wen ton and his cohort, Kicanas, became vice president.The sex abuse scandal shows the continuing moral dry rot at the top levels of the Church where institutional protection and protection of those seen as loyal to Rome matters (far more) than what is clearly just!

This is extremely serious, and would seem to threaten much of the work that has been done.A couple of questions: This deposition and settlement regard the civil suit. Since the abuse and the "lapses" by George et al appear to be well within the statute of limitations, is there any criminal exposure? Also, does Illinois have a reporting law that George and others would have been subject to? The penalties are generally misdemeanors, but convictions would take this to a whole other level.

Bob Nunz is too kind. It is not "dry rot" that is the problem, it is a dark, dank, poisonous evil. George and the rest of that sorry collection of bishops and cardinals ought to be run out of town on rails. They have all the moral credibility of blowflies.

David, re: your question: I'm not an attorney and can't cite chapter and verse, but my understanding is that the clergy are considered "mandatory reporters" by the State of Illinois.Given the theater of the absurd that is Illinois politics right now, and the history of conflict between the archdiocese and Illinois DCFS, I would think it's entirely possible that that shoe will drop, and soon.

Here is the link to the SNAP analysis of the Cardinal's deposition:Shortcut to: http://reform-network.net/?p=1904What is even worse are the recent court findings that Bishop G. Wilton did the same thing in the Belleville, IL diocese when he was president of the USCCB. Now, George is the president of the USCCB and Kicanas will be the next president of the USCCB. It is a boys club!

Thanks, Jim. Big question, I think, is how old that law is--many of them were bolstered after 2002, but there may be no weapon for an angry DA to use. Some try RICO type charges, but those go nowhere. Or they could do as they did in Philly and issue a lengthy report that can be just as damning.

"A letter of reprimand is not good enough. None of this is."Absolutely. So when are we going to concretely demand a change in the structure of the church. The system allows bishops to do what they want and they do it only when the Courts stop them. When are the people of the church going to stop them?

Jim & David - you are correct on the law and the expiration of the statute of limitations. Delaying actions by the George's of this world only support that approach.It is too bad that the USCCB does not realize that sex abuse is a national/international issue and the Catholic Church could take leadership on this issue. We need to support all movements by states/federal to repeal or provide windows that offset the statute of limitations for a period of time; as a church we need to appoint a Truth and Reconciliation Board e.g. South Africa and apartheid.Marci Hamilton & Doyle are two of the foremost experts on the statute of limitations issue and presented to Congress two weeks ago: Shortcut to: http://www.richardsipe.com/doyle/Kettelkamp_5-13-08.pdf

David, here's the law again, and it looks like 2003 legislative session:Any member of the clergy having reasonable cause to believe that a child known to that member of the clergy in his or her professional capacity may be an abused child as defined by law shall immediately report or cause a report to be made to the department. (325 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/4 (West, WESTLAW through 2003 Reg. Sess.) Further, Anyperson required by this Act to report suspected child abuse and neglect who willfully fails to report such shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first violation and a Class 4 felony for a second or subsequent violation. I have often wondered why it was not enforced against George. The Defenbaugh Report notes up front that he did not report in accord with the law. See http://www.archchicago.org/c_s_abuse/report_032006/defenbaugh_full_repor... This is an important reminder of the deceit and criminality on the part of US bishops, which George himself just glossed over as badly mishandled. I believe every diocese has its version of Chicago documents, or Philadelphias grand jury report, Boston depositions, Manchester, NHs AG investigation, ad nauseam. And yet the media in general is tired of the story, the laity passive and deferential, and bishops continue to get away with everything. Its history, remember? Weve been here repeatedly, and nothing happens. Bishops are untouchable in their oiled PR world, staying incredibly on message.The comments here though are of comfort to this survivor advocate.

Note the qualifying phrases "reasonable cause to believe" and "willfully fails to report" in the statute Carolyn Disco cites. Simply based on the summary of this deposition, the evidence that Francis George, himself, "willfully" failed to report child abuse that he had "reasonable cause to believe" may have occurred is rather doubtful. Perhaps an Illinois lawyer can explain how "willfully" is defined in Illinois, but surely it presupposes a deliberateness in failing to report exceeding "negligently" or "grossly negligently." I'm not saying that George isn't in criminal jeopardy given all the screaming and shouting, but it seems he shouldn't be in legal jeopardy. The mere fact that the abuse occured "under his watch," as the Chicago paper portentously opened its story, is interesting, but it seems to be an insufficient basis for sustaining a criminal prosecution.

You make good points about the criminality. But in the June USCCB meeting and the section from the John Jay report, George was quoted as saying that although the priest pedophile % appears to match the public in general, you would expect the church and its leadership to be held to a higher standard. So, don't believe a Chicago district attorney would prosecute him anyway but given his failure at leadership and being held to a higher standard - does he have the courage to resign? why did he promote those who obviously failed in their own responsibilities - it is not 1985 anymore? (on a personal note, he spent most of 2006 fighting cancer but these decisions esp. the last priest were made prior to 2006 and after 2006.Ran across this older post from Francis George on the death of Catholic liberalism. Tom Reese basically states that only the sexual abuse scandal has kept liberalism alive - it appears that Reese may not be a very good prognosticator:Liberal Catholicism: Dead? Currently president of the US bishops, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago mused that liberal Catholicism was an "exhausted project" back in 1997... and now, in posing the question, no less than TIME follows suit:The liberal rebellion in American Catholicism has dogged Benedict and his predecessors since the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65. "Vatican II," which overhauled much of Catholic teaching and ritual, had a revolutionary impact on the Church as a whole. It enabled people to hear the Mass in their own languages; embraced the principle of religious freedom; rejected anti-semitism; and permitted Catholic scholars to grapple with modernity.But Vatican II meant even more to a generation of devout but restless young people in the U.S. rather than a course correction, Terrence Tilley, now head of the Fordham University's theology department, wrote recently, his generation perceived "an interruption of history, a divine typhoon that left only the keel and structure of the church unchanged." They discerned in the Council a call to greater church democracy, and an assertion of individual conscience that could stand up to the authority of even the Pope. So, they battled the Vatican's birth-control ban, its rejection of female priests and insistence on celibacy, and its authoritarianism.Rome pushed back, and the ensuing struggle defined a movement, whose icons included peace activist Fr. Daniel Berrigan, feminist Sister Joan Chittister, and sociologist/author Fr. Andrew Greeley. The reformers' premier membership organization was Call to Action, but their influence was felt at the highest reaches of the American Church, as sympathetic American bishops passed left-leaning statements on nuclear weapons and economic justice. Remarks Tilley, "For a couple of generations, progressivism was an [important] way to be Catholic."Then he adds, "But I think the end of an era is here."...Then, the movement received a monstrous reprieve. The priest sex abuse scandal implicated not only the predators, but the superiors who shielded them. John Paul remained mostly silent. A new reform group, Voice of the Faithful, arose; the old anger returned, crystallizing around the battle-cry "They just don't get it."Benedict's visit, however, changed the dynamic. And that's a problem for progressives. Says Fr. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Center whom Benedict famously removed from his previous job as editor of America, "Reform movements need an enemy to organize against. As most bishops have gotten their acts together on sex abuse, they have looked less like the enemy and more like part of the solution. Enthusiasm for reform declined. With the Pope's forthright response, it will decline even more."Will it? Who has gotten their act together?

No bishop has been removed because he has tolerated or enabled sexual abuse.Law resigned and had to persuade Rome to accept his resignation. He was kicked upstairs.Archbishop Penney of Newfoundland is the only prelate who understood how a Christian should act. After his own commission said he was to blame for enabling the abuse, he resigned against the will of the Pope and devoted his life to prayer and penance.The first word that announced the arrival of the Messiah was "Repent." Without that foundation, the Christian life is a sham.

In response to Patrick Rothwell:The Defenbaugh audit found violations of the IL reporting law, and George admitted in deposition that he NEVER reported allegations to the authorities. "In the investigation of Bennett, the deposition finds the cardinal and church officials received four detailed allegations of sexual abuse dating back to 2002. But they did not act to remove Bennett from his church until 2006, despite two recommendations from the archdiocese review board months earlier, according to the deposition.Instead, Bennett was placed under the supervision of a monitor, Rev. Leonard Dubi, who apparently was Bennetts close friend. George disregarded a recommendation by an archdiocese review board to remove Bennett in October 2005 and again in November, attributing the delay to the priests lack of representation by a canon lawyer.By the time he was removed, the deposition reveals, more than a dozen allegations had mounted against the priesta fact the archdiocese failed to tell parishioners and the public."OR the authorities under the law. I believe this indicates willfulness in not reporting grossly negligent conduct.

Prosecutors are not immune from community pressure. Is there an organized group in IL petitioning not the church, but the state to prosecute Cardinal George? Or would there be an outcry if he were prosecuted?What's the mood in the community?

Thomas Reese was whistling in the dark!Reasonable cause to beleive means one can believe something if there's a good reason and is basis for prosecution. In our system, criminal conviction, though means proof beyond a reasonable doubt - moral certitude.I personally beleive many Bishops hav ebehaved criminally, are criminal, and the fact they remain in position only undecuts the contiuning lack of moral authority they try instead to butress up

Reform movements need an enemy to organize against. As most bishops have gotten their acts together on sex abuse, they have looked less like the enemy and more like part of the solution. Enthusiasm for reform declined. With the Popes forthright response, it will decline even more.Thanks for this Bill. Can you give a reference. Too simplistic in my view. The reason the reform has problems is that most reformers have real jobs. The hierarchy has a built in staff to maintain it monarchy and pay a lot of lay people to follow suit. Secondly, reformers get crucified and forgive their persecutors. The true church lives. It is not always in miters and red hats.

Reading through Cardinal Georges lengthy deposition is so painful. Over and over he takes refuge in technicalities which-- to him-- justify suspending judgment about abusers almost indefinitely while innocent children are put in jeopardy. What does it say about our bishops that he should be their chosen leader? Fr. Reese may be right that reform movements need an enemy to organize against. But I think he is mistaken in thinking the bishops have their act together. Not by a long shot.

The bishops have done a masterful job in creating a mirage of getting their act together through the USCCB audits. Now, yes there has been progress but the process is designed to make the bishops look good, with 1) no national standards or benchmarks set for implementation of Charter articles, 2) movable goals from year to year to insinuate compliance (in 2004, just selecting a training program meant full compliance whether it was implemented or not), and 3) a system of two tries at the apple: unreleased initial findings three-fourths of the way through the year showed 74% of dioceses in compliance, but if required actions were completed by year end, then 95% or more would be in compliance. Guess which results were trumpeted in full court press. The true grade was not the grade.USCCB auditors had no right of access to personnel files either, and had to rely on the accuracy and transparency of the dioceses something they noted as a caveat when reporting. Nothing about the McCormack or Bennett cases in Chicagos audit results.

My last word - promise.I did a comparison of USCCB results with truly independent audits by the NH Attorney General pursuant to a plea bargain not to prosecute for criminal endangerment. It was a night and day exercise. See a partial, and hopefully not too confusing, analysis at http://votf.org/Survivor_Support/audit.html , The bishops claim one thing, the state finds something very different Example: The Gavin Group USCCB auditors found Manchester NH in full compliance with the Dallas Charter one year, while *ten months later,* the AG site visits found The Diocese has exhibited a general level of ineffectiveness in enforcing compliance with the Agreement and its own policies. This ineffectiveness has resulted in: repeated missed deadlines for implementation of the policies, incomplete training, incomplete written acknowledgements, lack of background checks, and unfilled positionsThe level of compliance with the policies and agreement at the local level is inconsistent at best. No site was 100% compliantin one parish only 16% of employees or volunteers who worked with children had a sex offender registry check completedEven at the diocesan level, compliance was not 100%. Eight and one-half percent of priests had not signed the acknowledgements an express requirement that should have been completed more than 2 years ago. 8. Only one paragraph in a five-page letter mentioned some accomplishments."But the media and laity are tired of the issue, and really no one cares about such discrepancies. McCormack spins and lies about the AG results at will with no consequences. How he can do it with a straight face or conscience is beyond me. And so it goes.

You asked for a reference. What I copied and pasted was an opinion piece from Thomas Reese puublished in the NY Times. There is no documentation to either prove or negate his opinion.In terms of the reform movement - read Robert Blair Kaiser's new book on the church, B16, and the future.

"Is there an organized group in IL petitioning not the church, but the state to prosecute Cardinal George? Or would there be an outcry if he were prosecuted?Whats the mood in the community?"Just speaking for myself: I haven't heard any hue and cry for his head. The few people with whom I've had face-to-face conversations about it are somewhat puzzled that I'm upset enough to mention it. The local press trumpeted the multi-million-dollar settlement, not the deposition, and I believe that slant has colored folks' perception of what the story is about. And I do think there is fatigue on the part of the public.I believe the political calculation on the part of the States Attorney's office is a complicated one. But by no means should it be supposed that the Archdiocese or its officials has the political clout to ensure immunity.

Add one more case that the dear Cardinal is involved in - early release vs. Wisconsin state wanting to put this guy away forever. Link: Shortcut to: http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/religion/1107626,CST-NWS-abuse14a.art... - as you and others have mentioned, the apathy of the middle of the road Catholic on these issues is palpable. Most just want it to go away or just get over it. For me this is the true sadness of the Catholic Church.Story - when we had our Dallas scandal in 1992 (no big headlines), the bishop was caught lying on the stand. Influential lay leaders (owner of the Dallas Morning News and Channel 8 who is a Knight of Malta), the owner/editor of D magazine, etc.) met with the bishop and worked out a compromise that they would support the settlement award, impact on the diocese, etc. but he needed to retire the following year. The bishop gladly accepted their support and then reneged on his promise. Given this, the local district attorney never pursued his lying - that was 16 years ago.Aware only of SNAP in terms of an organization that might appeal to the state or Cook County or the city of Chicago (as you state - politics being politics; will anything happen). Not sure where Call to Action or VOTF is on this latest announcement. Notice no other bishop is calling for his resignation nor will they. No statement from the papal nuncio, Sambi Pietro nor would I expect one. As in Boston, it will come down to the media and then the priests of the diocese for change to happen.Like you, when I try to raise these issues with friends, they get irritated and tell me to move on.

As of August 14, 2008, Andrew Greeley's turn as a columnist at the Chicago Sun-Times has not arrived, that is, after this settlement. I wonder whether Greeley will praise or slam his Ordinary. Given what happened to the principal of Our Lady of the Westside Catholic school (Douglas Park) last year when she spoke out, I doubt that any priest or employee of the archdiocese will utter even the smallest complaint. People are afraid for their jobs, which are their income and life support. Diocesan clergy who are not famous authors or have some other means of support resemble serfs. If you are an employee of the church or almost any U.S. company, you cannot publicly scold your boss. And you cannot blow the whistle. The imposed silence eats at company profits and at the spread of the Gospel.

I'm somewhat conflicted. I've admired Cardinal George for a long time, and do my best to serve his local church - and him. I believed him when he publicly apologized, and really hope that he will follow through and take steps to make the archdiocese more transparent. If I could give him advice, it would be to follow the Holy Father's lead and meet with the victims, particularly the ones who just settled, if they will meet with him.

I was thinking along the same liness joe McMahon -what will Greeley say about his good buddies in the Chicago leadership team?The post by Joe though is another important piece of the damage this abuse scandal has brought to light: hoiw under the thumb many priests must perceive themselves to be and dependent on not angering their ordinary by speaking out.It's another piece of what's wrong with the loyalty up the line m.o. so prevalent since the retrenchment inforced by JPII and thenceforward.

Joe, Greeley has a scathing article on the bishops in the present issue of Commonweal. As far as George is concerned, he is smart enough to woo Greeley and Andrew has responded by reciprocating praise. Good politics on George's part which is Romanita at its best. Cicero, Caesar, Cato, Augustus and the rest always knew how to keep their enemies close. No matter how much we know it's baloney, we still like it. My bet is that Greeley will pass or at least give George an outlet.

Lets hope VOTF Chicago can get enough Parish pew Catholics to stand up and demand a resignation immediately. The 'Good Germans1941'did nothing, at least they were up against armed men.. what are pew Catholics afraid of ?...

A post by a VOTF rep in Chicago today said they're swamped in response to their call for the Cardinal to resign (a second call now.)Interestingly, in the new America, an article by Sr. Camille Darienzo urging forgiveness for abusers as the way to move forward appears.I found it well intentioned but again part of the staple that wants to let folks like the Cardinal, Bishop Kicnas, the Law residue, etc. off the hook.SOL legislation hardly gets a mention.The focus is again mainly inward on the institution and it is that perception that unfortunately misguides our leaders.The institution above all leads to all kinds of mental juggling and excuses as the deposition demonstyrates- a major "out of touch" on the part of a leadership still self consumed.

Im somewhat conflicted. Ive admired Cardinal George for a long time, and do my best to serve his local church - and him. I believed him when he publicly apologized, and really hope that he will follow through and take steps to make the archdiocese more transparent.

It sounds like youre saying you dont think he should resign voluntary or be pressured to resign. If thats the case, can I ask: is it that you dont believe that the material thats been presented against him -- both in Grant Gallichos original post and in some of the comments -- is accurate? Or are you saying that, even if it is accurate, its magnitude is not great enough to require George to resign? If its the latter, what would it take how much more wrongdoing, besides whats already been shown here for you to say, Yes, he must resign?

"It sounds like youre saying you dont think he should resign voluntary or be pressured to resign. If thats the case, can I ask: is it that you dont believe that the material thats been presented against him both in Grant Gallichos original post and in some of the comments is accurate? Or are you saying that, even if it is accurate, its magnitude is not great enough to require George to resign? If its the latter, what would it take how much more wrongdoing, besides whats already been shown here for you to say, Yes, he must resign? "Hi, Gene,While I do understand that people may be curious about what I think in my heart of hearts - I hope you will understand that in this particular case, I'm choosing not to air it on DotCommonweal. Sorry, man. It takes a minimum of two Sam Adams' to get me solving world hunger.

While Jim remains reticent, folks here should understand that Chicagoland Voice of the Faithful is gearing up to demand the Cardinal resign and ask folks all over the US to write to prosecutorial folk in Illinois to move against him.It remains true that not one Bishop has been removed for the poor oversight and/ot minimizing or covering up terrible crimes against children.That record is horrendous!

Respect your stance, Jim. You work in the archdiocese, right and have a clerical role? Again, the hierarchy has many ways to keep us Catholics in our place - jobs, salaries, family impact, professional stance, etc.Just a suggestion - VOTF could ask one of the senators from Illinois to approach the state attorney general (gee, one of those senators has a very high profile right now - would this help him get the Catholic vote?)

My hope is that the people of God can express their outrage in a careful, well-thought approach. To quote from Gregory Baum: "It is a duty of conscience to play Paul to today's Cephas, to stand as a parallel magisterium against an adamantine papal magisterium, which heretofore appears hopelessly miscast as a monarchy in a democratic age. The answers are all in place. Broaden the basis of consultation and decision-making. Acknowledge the Spirit alive in the Baptized. Reconvene diocesan synods. Apply the principle of subsidiarity at each level of the Church. Give people a stake in the communio. Do not be afraid of accountability and a much greater democracy. We all have a right to a fuller participation in the life of the Church. Disagreement with the Magisterium may indeed render a service to the Church, a Church which Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVl said needs "not adulators to extol the status quo but folks whose humility and obedience are no less than their passion for truth; who brave every misunderstanding and attack as they bear witness; who, in a word love the Church more than ease and the unruffled course of their personal destiny."

Thanks, Jim, I saw that editorial. There are also a couple of others. Interesting point - some folks were waiting to see the Andy Greeley column - he did not write on George's deposition....now that could start a whole lot of comment.